Social Services have long memories, and a messianic distaste for having their noses tweaked by those with more power then they.

Those with equally long memories will remember the case of Stephen Neary that we so successfully championed on this blog.

Steven was the 20 year old autistic lad who, Hillingdon Borough Council, when presented with the opportunity – Steven’s father had requested three days respite care whilst he recovered from the flu – contrived to have Steven deprived of his liberty for a full year and incarcerated in their Orwellian ‘Positive Behaviour Unit’.

We chronicled Mark Neary’s long fight to have Steven returned to the home he knew and loved here and here. It culminated in Mr Justice Peter Jackson, in a historic ruling made public because of the ‘extensive social media coverage’ that ‘Hillingdon Borough Council had acted as if it had the right to make decisions about Steven, and a combination of turning a deaf ear and force majeure, it tried to wear down Mr Neary’s resistance stretching its relationship with him almost to breaking point. It relied upon him coming to see things its way, even though, as events have proved, he was right and it was wrong.’

The Judge ordered Steven’s release from the ‘Positive Behaviour Unit’ in time for Christmas 2010. That the mental and financial strain of fighting for Steven’s release did not break Mark Neary’s spirit is a testament to one man’s love for his son. It undoubtedly tired him out.

So a year later, Mark applied to Hillingdon for respite care yet again. He is entitled to it, it is the right of every carer in the country to have some help, paid for by the rest of us, to a break from the onerous duty of full time single parent carer. Hillingdon are in charge of the funds that are allocated for this service in their area. That they do allocate them for many families can be seen HERE. Not for Mr Neary though.

On Saturday night, Mark Neary returned home to a letter from his caring local council informing him that his request for an allocation of £3,900 to pay for 42 nights of a carer staying overnight to ensure that Mark got some beauty sleep – ‘was denied‘.

“It is not our practice to fund additional respite care elsewhere when the service is already provided and paid for by the local authority”.

Where, you might ask, is this ‘respite care provided elsewhere by the local authority”.

None other than the Orwellian ‘Positive Behaviour Unit’ that so traumatised Steven and his Father when he was incarcerated there for a year.

Force majeure, as Mr Justice Jackson so perfectly described it – he may have forced Hillingdon to release Steven, but now they say that unless Mark Neary returns him there, he will have no break from caring for his son. 

That is one vicious Borough.

J Dalton March 23, 2012 at 10:39

A message for mark and Steven.

Personalisation. if you are entitled to respite, get the £3,900 as a direct
payment and choose wehere to buy your respite care. There a number of
voluntary organisations which will help, you’ll find them locally. i’m not
saying they won’t fight this, but you are entitled to a direct payment.

Mark Neary
March 23, 2012 at 18:37

We already get direct payments for Steven’s normal day to day package of
support when he is out and about on his community activities. They have said
that I cannot use direct payments to fund the respite, for the same reason
Anna mentioned above – they have a inhouse facility that must be used. The
way Hillingdon audit the direct payment accounts is incredibly high handed –
I have to give receipts, time sheets etc for everything. The irony is, they
sell their direct payments scheme as “offering greater choice and
flexibility”. Our choice is for Steven to return to the place that caused
him so much trauma, or nothing at all.

Edna Fletcher
March 23, 2012 at 21:57

Hi Mark

Your experience with this issue is mirrored in another local
authority’s decision in connection with respite service from their block
contract with a single provider for this locally. My sympathies to you
also in connection with your efforts to deal with direct payments. Carer
refused this although offered it because of the high handed attitude well
known in other authorities regarding record keeping / audits. Significant
carers do not need the sheer extra work involved.

Edna Fletcher
March 21, 2012 at 18:02

Hillingdon is not the only borough with a vindictive and nasty social
services in the capital. One used the argument either accept their nationally
known block contract provider who could not provide what was specifically
required by the carer or take direct payment to buy ones own preferred
provision. Carer unwilling to deal with ‘rotten borough’ finance department
who expect you to keep perfect records, when they keep bad ones, so never had
the service. Years later situation unchanged for a significant 24/7 carer of
2.

Did complaining to Local Government Ombudsman help? Well hardly when they
accept lies from rotten councils and then uphold their actions even when a
judge would not. LGO will fight tooth and nail to avoid a Judicial Review of a
decision that would show them up on this (reported by the rotten borough to
the relevant committee).

Who cares about carer’? Not those vindictive souls in social services ,
whose own kind reported in a national newspaper in 2009 that social workers
were not infrequently vindictive- something those the likes of poor Mr Neary
learnt the hard way.

uk Fred March 22, 2012 at 20:52

I found that my local council (not Hillingdon) had a much more
co-operative attitude whan I asked quite politely of the local government
ombudsman whether, since the council was entitled to a copy of every
communication from me to the LGO about the case whether I would be entitled
to a copy of every letter the council sent to the LGO. The LGO confirmed
that this was perfectly fair and reasonable and agreed to let me have
copies.

Edna Fletcher
March 22, 2012 at 23:35

The LGO officers were unnerved in all probability with the extent of
evidenced distortions / fabrications/ omissions by the local authority
which were given in the complaint.
The LGO work itself turned out to be
so poor that it would need to be made public, (LGO are not accountable
publicy), to be believed. Others too have noted this issue.
These
ex-council wallahs and their council cronies do not like to be shown up.
Their defence, as Mark Neary too found, borders on the powerfully
indifferent/ callous (LGO) or powerfully vindictive / defensive
(Councils).

The LGO did provide the council’s written communication in response to
its queries, but as an oversight after the provisional view was sent.
Facts were distorted, compared to actual entries as written in the very
voluminous client case notes sent to the LGO which the investigator, in an
e-mail, indicated had not been fully scrutinised by the investigator. It
would take a blind man not to see this distortion, the LGO did not wish to
see it even in a very detailed, referenced, response- the LGO turned out
to be blind.

Being polite of course is important, but that would make me a lion in
sheep’s clothing and I suspect that no more results in justice, until or
if you have the media behind you.
I hope the communications you
received helped you win your case. If not well maybe you need to be a lion
next time- who knows?

uk Fred
March 24, 2012 at 00:33

I found that the investigating officer assigned to my case was a most
pleasant persn when dealing with me, but she was a solicitor and trained
in dealing with evidence. I had a file of evidence that did not support
the local authority’s view and after one attempt at stonewalling, they
found that there was evidence to suggest strongly that the local
authority were not being truthful. What sealed the deal was the fact
that I had a local authority cassette, my copy of a tape recorded
meeting which the authority had written to the LGO to say had not been
recorded, and when I played it to the investigating officer, she had a
field day. I just got the impression that she did have a bit of an axe
to grind with that authority and was pleased to have found someone who
had the equally bureacratic mind of those who framed the law to ensure
that my file was complete and the file the local authority provided was
missing several incriminating documents. It worked and I got my
apology.

Edna
Fletcher March 27, 2012 at
00:05

You have just supported the view that complaining to the LGO
amounts to little more than ‘pot luck’. Just a footnote, a solicitor I
used reminded me (as I am trained in evidence base in science) the law
is not scientific in its approach- so that explains why the law is an
ass?!

Edna
Fletcher March 28, 2012 at
09:30

With view to your solicitor investigator at the LGO. A care agency
worker had been a solicitor and last worked in local government.
Curious where solicitors from local government experience end up.

Amfortas March 21, 2012 at 02:44

Ivan. This overall situation may well have been ‘foisted on us’ by the
labor nanny State but it is implemented by the ‘ordinary’ people employed by
Hillingdon Council. These are the ones who exhibit the complete lack of
Integrity and humanity. It is they who are vicious in their responses. They
live next door to someone. They shop in the same supermarkets and are
otherwise quite indistinguishable from you and I. Were a ‘Legal’ suit be
undertaken it out to be personal. The individuals should be held to account as
well as any ‘group’ ie political Party or local council. Following Orders is
not a good enough excuse and should not be.

alan March 20, 2012 at 23:55

“A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest
members.”

Mahatma Ghandi

Charles Crosby
March 20, 2012 at 19:06

@ carol42 “not seen much more about it though.”

Nor are you likely to whilst the mainstream media is controlled by bodies
like The CFR and with The Fabians/Jesuits controlling the BBC.

Paedophilia and bestiality are the only scandals that can now be
effectively used for blackmail. All the other sexual perversions are now
readily accepted by our perverted society.

“How did we all grow up without these people?”

Because if they had tried it on in those days there would have been rioting
on the streets and too many social workers in hospital with severe
injuries.
Perhaps it also reflects upon the current standard of today’s
manhood i.e. girly men.

carol42 March 20, 2012 at 18:50

Did you see the article about the psychologist being investigated for false
reports to let the SS take away the babies of young mothers for adoption? not
seen much more about it though. How did we all grow up without these
people?

Charles Crosby
March 20, 2012 at 17:16

You’re all missing the point. When local neighbourly friendship is replaced
with a Communist State ‘welfare system’ what do you expect? You and the father
have slept walked into their snare. Wake up plebs before it’s too late.

Bob March 22, 2012 at 21:07

How right you are. When we vote for a bigger government, we get bigger
government.
Or as someone put it, a population of sheep begats a
government of wolves.
I blame our parent’s generation who voted Labour
after the war so they could get a Welfare State, which promised to take care
from the cradle to the grave. Once the slippery slope started………

Mark Neary March 20, 2012 at 14:38

Thanks again Anna.

For those interested, Lucy Series asked me to write a blog post about some
research I and others had done into the state of carers assessments. Each
year, every local council gets a carers grant from central government (These
average apporx £1.7 million). In 2010/11, Hillingdon conducted 1236 carers
assessments. I’ve had four of them and they usually last about 90 minutes. In
that year, all those assessments produced just 8 outcomes for carers. I am one
of the unfortunate 1228, for whom the experience was completely worthless.
That year, Hillingdon received a carers grant of £1,046,000. Where has the
money gone?

The linnk to the blog post is here: http://thesmallplaces.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/mark-neary-what-price-carers.html

SadButMadLad
March 20, 2012 at 15:02

Where has the money gone? Probably in the pockets of the council CEOs.
The money isn’t ring fenced so councils are free to spend it on roads or on
the salaries of their executives.

This lack of ring fencing of government money for such care is mentioned
in this Daily Mail article – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116568/What-makes-Government-think-learning-disabled-right-live-squalor-weigh-20-stone-teeth-removed.html

JuliaM March
21, 2012 at 05:23

“The money isn’t ring fenced…”

*clutches head in despair*

Idiots!

SadButMadLad
March 20, 2012 at 13:24

Hillingdon are doing the name of the civil service a great disservice.

I know we shouldn’t be targetting the people in the council who are only
doing their job and “following orders” because that would make Mark and
Steven’s situation even worse. But they, who for some reason (possibly losing
their job so understandable to an extent) do not stand up and do the right
thing, should be felt to be ashamed and embarrassed at working at Hillingdon
even if the public don’t know their names.

This can be done by other people who do interact with Hillingdon ensuring
that the staff know that their actions (or inactions) are being noted by the
public and opinions formed in negative terms. It can also be done by other
staff at Hillingdon, such as the PR staff who will have an even harder time in
the future putting out good news from the council, but only if journalists do
their job properly and question Hillingdon properly rather than parrot out
press releases.

Hillingdon can either put up walls in a bunker down mentallity or open up
and admit their mistakes and move on. The former means that Hillingdon’s name
is going to be continued to be dragged through the mud. Do the people of
Hillingdon want that or have they given up on their council too?

JuliaM March 20,
2012 at 13:51

“…but only if journalists do their job properly …”

We can forget that, then…

FrankC March 20, 2012 at 23:53

Since this case is not family court and can be reported upon,
perhaps Christopher Booker in the Telegraph might be interested?

Ted Treen
March 21, 2012 at 23:35

If not Christopher Booker, then Ian Hislop at Private Eye would
probably be interested

GildasTheMonk
March 20, 2012 at 12:20

Addendum. Mark also told me that the issue of damages remained unresolved
and pending a further hearing. So it may well be that there is an avenue to be
explored there….

GildasTheMonk
March 20, 2012 at 12:17

I spoke to Mark earlier this year when writing a couple of pieces on the
case for this blog. He told me at the time that Hillingdon wanted to put
Steven back in “the Unit” in which he had so unhappily been illegally
incarcerated and the very mention of the place made Steven extremely
distressed. Understandably so. I’d say this is Hillingdon trying to get one
back. Shocking. Judicial Review, anyone?
G the M

ivan March 20, 2012 at 12:08

The Empire Strikes Back.

What Mark Neary did was to challenge the empire that the SS had built.
There is no way they could let such a challenge go, they had to show him who
was/is in charge.

This is the typical response of the ‘nanny knows best’ outlook foisted on
the country by the last labour government and helped along by the lib faction
in the present one.

Short of taking them to court again I don’t see any way out. Ed P’s
suggestion, while good, has the problem of setting a precedent, which could be
used by the SS in the future.

Ed P March 20, 2012 at 10:51

These vindictive swinish jobsworths will never admit error.

So how about (if you can bear it after your bad experiences recently)
starting a collection for a private carer to relieve Mr. Neary?
I’m sure
many will contribute a few pounds each – you’d soon exceed the £3900.

Anna
Raccoon March 20, 2012 at 11:16

I’d have to think about that one Ed P, no offence to Mark Neary, but as
you say, after recent experiences….

Elena
‘andcart March 21, 2012 at 09:44

Sad but True. Have a care, and don’t get involved, Love. You do not
need any more hassle with Banks and things.

Perhaps someone in England could do it.

Karen March 20, 2012 at 10:49

How nasty and vindictive can you get?

I hope the poor bloke manages to find some help.

JuliaM March 20,
2012 at 10:34

And will there be even an iota of the OUTRAGE poured into the web by the
usual suspects over the recent Met police autistic boy in swimming pool
incident?

Nope.